DailyTech - Apple Announces the 13.3" MacBook

Submit News

Hardware Apple Announces the 13.3" MacBook
Tuan Nguyen (Blog) - May 16, 2006 8:45 AM

E-mail

del.icio.us

51 comment(s) - last by iamright.. on May 17 at 11:14 AM

Available in both black and white and starting at $1,099

Apple has been successfully launching and transitioning its computers over to Intel processors since early this year. During MacWorld, Steve Jobs vowed that all Macs will be using Intel processors by 2007. So far, Apple has done quite a commendable job at keeping its promise.
Today marks another major milestone for Apple: an Intel-based MacBook family which replaces the venerable iBook family that has been as critical to Apple's ongoing success as the 3-series is to BMW. Sources told DailyTech that Apple had originally planned to release the new MacBooks as early as last Tuesday, but yanked the launch at the last minute due to a shortage of stock on units.

The new MacBook follows the MacBook Pro in very close proximity. Specifications include Intel Core Duo processors ranging from 1.83GHz to 2.0GHz. The new MacBooks also come with all the ports that are available on the new MacBook Pros including two USB 2.0 ports, one FireWire 400 port, a GbE port and a DVI port that supports single-link displays (1920x1200 max). Also included is an iSight camera, Front Row with Apple Remote and the MagSafe power connector.

The newest feature to be introduced to the MacBook however is its 13.3-inch display, roughly one inch larger than the entry level iBook. The iBook previously was also available in a 14-inch model, which is currently not available in the MacBook series although some predict that Apple will launch a slightly larger and more upgraded MacBook down the line, similar to what Apple has done with the new 17-inch MacBook Pro. On the outside, the new MacBooks are available in two color choices: black or white, but don't use the same aluminum outer casing as the bigger MacBook Pro series.

The two white MacBooks announced today are shipping immediately starting with a price of $1,099 USD. The $1,499 USD black 2.0GHz MacBook ships within 3-7 business days.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Shame about the GFX

By Donegrim on 5/16/2006 9:51:35 AM , Rating: 2

If it wasn't for Intel's extreme integrated graphics powered by tubes and punchcards I would love one of these. Its a shame that to get decent graphics you have to shell out for the full macbook pro, but I suppose they need something to differentiate between the product lines.

RE: Shame about the GFX

By ksherman on 5/16/2006 10:38:15 AM , Rating: 2

I know... a lot of people are gonna be angry with it... I REALLY want to get one of these... Im wondering if the GFX card alone is gonna be ad enough to turn me away...

anyone know if this is goog enough to run the Adobe CS, Aperature, Final Cut Pro, etc... or is it really THAT bad? It seems it only real downfall is 3D, and I dont do a whole lot with 3D right now...

Parent

RE: Shame about the GFX

By Spoonbender on 5/16/2006 10:46:28 AM , Rating: 2

The problem is that there isn't a *good* integrated graphics solution for Intel. Sure, you could stick in a discrete GPU like, say, a 7300, but that requires a good deal more power and space, and the weight goes up. All three would work directly against what they're trying to achieve with these macbooks.

If they'd used AMD, both ATI and NVidia would have vastly superior integrated graphics options on offer. What a shame...

Parent

RE: Shame about the GFX

By ksherman on 5/16/2006 10:54:44 AM , Rating: 2

and not that it NEEDS more RAM, but only 64MB is allocated to it... wonder if that can be changed somewhere... prolly in a .kext file or something....

Parent

RE: Shame about the GFX

By hans007 on 5/16/2006 11:41:18 AM , Rating: 2

i have no idea how "using AMD" has anything with having good integrated graphics.

honestly i'd rather have a core duo in there than anything from amd.

not to mention the ATI integrated chipset (which is better than the nvidia ones) is available on intel platforms

Parent

RE: Shame about the GFX

By Brandon Hill

(blog) on 5/16/2006 11:48:50 AM , Rating: 2

What he means is that AMD based notebooks solutions typically come with either integrated ATI graphics or NVIDIA nForce/GeForce graphics. Either would be far superior to GMA950.

Now you could get a bottom rung AMD based notebook with integrated SiS graphics, but those usually linger around the $500 - $600 price point.

Parent

RE: Shame about the GFX

By Samus on 5/16/2006 5:48:54 PM , Rating: 2

Because with the exception of SiS, all mobile AMD chipsets are vastly superior in integrated graphics performance to Intel's craptastic Extreme Graphics engine, which has been around for 6 years and still has horrific 3D problems. Even the 2D environment (which OSX doesn't use anyway) is terrible, with generally poor RAMDAC output and plaguing driver issues.

This ALONE is enough for me to rule out virtually ALL Intel mobile offerings. I'm sorry, they do have a superior mobile chip (Core Duo) but the integrated graphics choices are terrible

Parent

Shame about the GFX

By milnerw on 5/16/2006 6:57:32 PM , Rating: 1

My mate has just got one of the current macbook pro's and it comes with an ATI x1600 in it and with mac's boot camp and windows running it did a very nice job of running half life 2 and then casualy swaped back to mac os for abit of music editing...... I think that they are great bits of kit and that you lot need to stand up and pull your heads out of your own a***'s and give them a try as they are honestly very good bits of kit

Parent

RE: Shame about the GFX

By plinden on 5/16/2006 12:27:11 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
nyone know if this is goog enough to run the Adobe CS, Aperature, Final Cut Pro

It'll run Photoshop and Aperture easily, not sure about FCPro. You'll notice little or no difference compared with a MacBookPro or iMac with the same CPU. But most Pro apps don't depend on a dedicated GPU.

You won't be able to Boot Camp Windows and play Doom 3 though.

Parent

RE: Shame about the GFX

By ksherman on 5/16/2006 12:33:48 PM , Rating: 2

figured that ;-)

bout the only thing I need windows for is Music and AutoCAD...

My desktop takes are of the music (not audio stuff, just MP3s... I use Napster and Tunebite, neither like OSX)

BUT my main motivation for getting a MacBook is for the Video Editing and other graphic design progies... And yes I do know that the Adobe products are not yet native, but they will prolly run faster than on my old 1.5 Celly Laptop...

as far as Games, I have a nice desktop o take care of those urges...

Parent

RE: Shame about the GFX

By plinden on 5/16/2006 12:57:38 PM , Rating: 2

Actually, I just remembered that Aperture isn't supported on Macs with integrated graphics but there's a way of disabling the hardware check. People have reported being able to use it on Intel powered Mac Minis.

Parent

RE: Shame about the GFX

By RandomFool on 5/16/2006 11:33:51 AM , Rating: 2

That's relly turning me off too, I was hoping for something better than 950. It's still tempting to buy but the graphics is killing me.

Parent

RE: Shame about the GFX

By lemonadesoda on 5/16/2006 11:45:57 AM , Rating: 3

The Intel integrated GPU is sufficient for all normal desktop applications.

This is a laptop/sub-notebook. It is not a desktop replacement.

If you want to play 3d games, get yourself a proper PC with a 23+inch TFT screen.

Parent

Intel GMA for HD decoding?

By Donegrim on 5/16/2006 2:01:00 PM , Rating: 2

Anyone know anything about whether Intel's finest has hardware decoding for HD video. If it has that, then I suppose it would do pretty well as a general multimedia/entertainment/various pro software laptop, just so long as no-one wanted to play anything more hardcore than freecell.

RE: Intel GMA for HD decoding?

By plinden on 5/16/2006 3:13:38 PM , Rating: 2

HD playback works fine on the 1.66GHz Core Duo Mac Minis. Should be no problem with these.

Parent

RE: Intel GMA for HD decoding?

By smilingcrow on 5/16/2006 3:43:59 PM , Rating: 2

I’m fairly sure that the GMA950 doesn’t offer H.264 decoding assist in hardware, but the overall system spec should mean it’s fine for HDV playback.

Parent

RE: Intel GMA for HD decoding?

By Ralph The Magician on 5/16/2006 6:48:24 PM , Rating: 2

According to Intel:

HDTV 480i/p, 576i/p, 720i/p and 1080i/p display resolution support

High Definition Hardware Motion Compensation to support high definition hi-bitrate MPEG2 media playback

Up and Down Scaling of Video Content

High Definition Content Decode - up to two stream support

5x3 Overlay Filtering

Parent

RE: Intel GMA for HD decoding?

By PrinceGaz on 5/16/2006 6:32:38 PM , Rating: 2

I very much doubt that Intel's finest (the GMA950) has hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, however a 2GHz Core Duo should definitely be fast enough for 720p on the CPU.

My Toledo Athlon 64 X2 clocked at 2.5GHz manages 1080p fine though at around 50-70% CPU load across both cores, so the inferior Core Duo mobile chip which is also clocked lower will drop frames without graphics hardware support. Obviously a desktop Core 2 Duo clocked at around 2.5GHz will handle 1080p fine by itself, just as my Toledo does.

Parent

RE: Intel GMA for HD decoding?

By Ralph The Magician on 5/16/2006 6:49:34 PM , Rating: 2

lol

Parent

RE: Intel GMA for HD decoding?

By plinden on 5/16/2006 8:59:02 PM , Rating: 2

There are no published tests of the MacBook yet, but there's a review of the Mac Mini (which also uses the Intel GMA950 graphics) here: http://www.macworld.com/2006/03/reviews/macmini/in...

So I'm pretty sure the MacBook can handle it.

quote:
The GMA950 chip also supports H.264 HD video playback. In our test of an HD movie trailer for IMAX’s Deep Sea 3D (H.264 encoding at 1,440 by 1,080 pixels), the Core Duo model played the video back smoothly. The Core Solo model, however, dropped frames, leading to distracting, stuttering video—even after we upgraded it to 1GB of RAM.

Parent

Only 2?

By Sunbird on 5/16/2006 6:04:34 PM , Rating: 2

Only 2 USB ports? That sucks.

I just bought a $500 notebook last week and it has 4. And it has none of that two ports on top of each other nonsense, thats prevents having a USB mouse and bulky USB thumbdive/MP3 player both in at the same time.

RE: Only 2?

By iamright on 5/16/2006 7:12:39 PM , Rating: 2

Get a hub?

Parent

RE: Only 2?

By Scott66 on 5/16/2006 8:44:13 PM , Rating: 2

Use the bluetooth for keyboard and mouse. Use the faster and less cpu intensive firewire for your external hardrives and video cameras. There is a built in camera so no USB needed there either. You can install your thumb drive and still have room for your quintessential ipod.

Parent

RE: Only 2?

By chizzle on 5/17/2006 1:55:07 AM , Rating: 2

Scott and iamright, I'm quite sure he's aware he can use a hub, or option out with bluetooth and firewire devices. That's not the point. His point is there are only two USB ports are standard.

Parent

RE: Only 2?

By Scott66 on 5/17/2006 3:03:16 AM , Rating: 2

Sunbird's point was 2 usb is not enough as his $500 laptop has 4. My point that a properly designed Mac Book being with its built-in features, two USB ports are enough. Apple decided there are better uses for the limited space.

Parent

RE: Only 2?

By Sunbird on 5/17/2006 6:49:15 AM , Rating: 2

You do have valid points, but I don't like wireless mice and USB hubs aren't cool (looks and otherwise). Anyway, the notebooks do look nice.

Still want to know, are the 2 ports stacked closely on top of each other.

Parent

RE: Only 2?

By iamright on 5/17/2006 11:14:34 AM , Rating: 2

My inspiron 9300 has 6 usb ports. I only use more than one when it is at home. Do many people actually use more than two usb ports when their laptop isn't at home or on the desk at work? If so, whats so bad about using a usb hub if there are tree or four or five usb devices wired up to the laptop? That seems to be uncool too.

quote:
Still want to know, are the 2 ports stacked closely on top of each other.

http://www.apple.com/macbook/gallery/index5.html

This picture shows the ports side by side.

Parent

They look cool but...

By iamright on 5/16/2006 10:45:12 AM , Rating: 2

I was talking to an apple rep at compusa about a week ago and he was telling all about how apple doesn't use the glossy screens because blah blah blah... they aren't as good etc. etc. and that sony screens with the x-bright are too bright and they don't show color as accurately and blah blah blah and now the new macbooks have glossy screens. I wonder if they will scratch like my ipod nano does? I wonder what the battery life is? I wonder why they don't include the mini div to dvi dongle for free anymore? I also wonder if you can get a black remote for frontrow or if its going to be white for the black macbook, kinda like my white headphones with my black ipod.

RE: They look cool but...

By plinden on 5/16/2006 12:03:13 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I was talking to an apple rep at compusa about a week ago and he was telling all about how apple doesn't use the glossy screens because blah blah blah

You're upset because of the opinion of a lowly rep who couldn't possibly know what the specs of the MacBook are?

I agree with him, I dislike glossy screens because the reflections give me headaches. Notice in the windows PC world, glossy screens are for consumer-only laptops? They must be cheaper or something. But my 5 month old work Dell D810 (a "pro" machine, although it's really a POS compared to the Thinkpad I had at my last job) has a nonreflective screen.

Still I'll be getting a MacBook for my wife and it'll be connected to an external monitor 90% of the time.

Parent

RE: They look cool but...

By iamright on 5/16/2006 12:33:26 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
You're upset because of the opinion of a lowly rep who couldn't possibly know what the specs of the MacBook are?

Who said anything about being upset? The point is that apple continues to use BS marketing tactics even down to the indoctrination of its lowliest reps at compusa. It's like how the would cap on intel graphics then when they started using it in the mini it suddenly became so extreme. It's the hyprcitical marketing that I am pointing out. It's the way apple spins things so much. What does being upset have to do with my first post?

Parent

RE: They look cool but...

By plinden on 5/16/2006 1:10:05 PM , Rating: 2

Oh, you came across as upset. Sorry if I misunderstood.

I don't remember Apple marketing mentioning anything about glossy vs matte screens. It seems to me you were hearing the personal opinion of the Apple rep.

I happen to agree with him and I'm haven't been indoctrinated - I'm surprised they're including a glossy screen. Away back when I was doing my PhD (about 20 years ago) all our PC monitors were glossy and reflective, and gave me an almost permanent headache that went away after we were given attachable anti-reflective screens. In the past few years all the laptops and desktop monitors I've used have been matte screens, and I don't really get this push for glossy screens now.

That still won't stop me getting one of these since it'll be used by my wife and will be attached to an external monitor most of the time.

The integrated graphics marketing fiasco is different since the 180° shift was so obvious.

Parent

RE: They look cool but...

By iamright on 5/16/2006 1:26:37 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I don't remember Apple marketing mentioning anything about glossy vs matte screens. It seems to me you were hearing the personal opinion of the Apple rep.

That is a good point. I used to work for a laptop store and noticed that the sales pitches used were usually sketchy because of the excuses that were made up to justify not having certain features that competitors had. I asume that the apple rep was doing something like that. It would be nice if the macbooks came with the options for both screens like the Pro models now do.

Parent

RE: They look cool but...

By iamright on 5/16/2006 12:35:27 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
You're upset because of the opinion of a lowly rep who couldn't possibly know what the specs of the MacBook are?

Who said anything about being upset? The point is that apple continues to use BS marketing tactics even down to the indoctrination of its lowliest reps at compusa. It's like how they would cap on intel graphics then when they started using it in the mini it suddenly became so extreme. It's the hyprcitical marketing that I am pointing out. It's the way apple spins things so much. What does being upset have to do with my first post?

Parent

WOAAAOH Wait a minute...

By ksherman on 5/16/2006 10:40:07 AM , Rating: 2

so, to get the black one, I need to shell out an additional $200... and all I get in return is a black case a a slightly bigger HD??!??!?!? now THAT kinda ticks me off...

RE: WOAAAOH Wait a minute...

By ksherman on 5/16/2006 10:58:25 AM , Rating: 2

and are the glossy screens really a good thing? I have never used one, but like the fact that LCDs are non-reflective...

Parent

RE: WOAAAOH Wait a minute...

By isaacmacdonald on 5/16/2006 3:45:30 PM , Rating: 2

I agree. Flourescent lights kill the viewing angle on these foolishly glossy screens. It's a half step forward and three steps back.

Additionally, I would prefer a dark gray / graphite colored finish to this black stuff.

That is all.

Parent

RE: WOAAAOH Wait a minute...

By Quasmo on 5/16/2006 11:34:07 AM , Rating: 2

It's almost as bad as the PS3.

Parent

No DVD burner in base model - bastards.

By smilingcrow on 5/16/2006 1:50:59 PM , Rating: 2

The bummer for me is that if you want an internal DVD burner, you have to go for the 2GHz version which costs an extra £150 in the UK. For the extra cash you get the Super FCUKin-expensive Drive and a marginal CPU speed bump. I hate this kinda marketing bull; it’s a way of creating an artificially low price floor with a product that lacks an essential feature. I’ve recently seen Dell laptops on offer at £300 with a DVD burner for god sakes. Takes a deep breath…

RE: No DVD burner in base model - bastards.

By boinkle on 5/16/2006 2:24:14 PM , Rating: 2

You could always get an external, or use an existing machine. Personally, I have a DVD writer in the desktop connected via USB2, with an extension for use with the Powerbook ;)

Course, if you want portability, then yes. It sucks.

Parent

RE: No DVD burner in base model - bastards.

By smilingcrow on 5/16/2006 3:49:33 PM , Rating: 1

boinkle states: "You could always get an external, or use an existing machine."

Lateral thinking at such a banal level as to be almost scary. Are you able to use a mouse without opposing thumbs?

Parent

RE: No DVD burner in base model - bastards.

By beemercer on 5/16/2006 8:26:09 PM , Rating: 3

hahahaa

Parent

How much of a performance difference will there be between this and its predecessor?

By Nocturnal on 5/16/2006 2:58:35 PM , Rating: 2

I'm wondering how big of a diff will there be as far as performance is concerned? I wonder if AT will do a review on this particular model?

If they become affordable, I may just pick one up for myself :).

RE: How much of a performance difference will there be between this and its predecessor?

By ksherman on 5/16/2006 3:20:11 PM , Rating: 2

id say it is pretty affordable already! a bit cheaper than i thought they would come out as

Parent

RE: How much of a performance difference will there be between this and its predecessor?

By secretanchitman on 5/16/2006 4:59:50 PM , Rating: 2

though the intel GMA 950 sucks...its better than nothing.

Parent

RE: How much of a performance difference will there be between this and its predecessor?

By JAS on 5/16/2006 10:18:45 PM , Rating: 2

Check Amazon.com. They tend to offer substantial cash rebates on Apple products. For instance, the rebate on the MacBook Pro is $150. I buy from Apple only if I need a build-to-order option.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/5651...

Parent

Heat

By Ryan Norton on 5/16/2006 9:29:29 AM , Rating: 2

You think Apple's assemblers have learned how to apply thermal compound in these, or are they still using ice cream scoops?

RE: Heat

By Wahsapa on 5/16/2006 9:52:48 AM , Rating: 2

maybe thats why these laptops have been delayed for so long

Parent

Welcome to the mass market, Apple

By boinkle on 5/16/2006 11:51:43 AM , Rating: 3

Appalling GPU or not, this is incredibly good value. Macs are nothing special, they're just x86 machines nowadays, but this undercuts equivalent machines from Asus and MSI by a country mile (£705UKP Edu - delivered). I'll take two!

Wonderful for productivity... DVI, Gigabit... just what I wanted.

Form over function

By vision33r on 5/16/2006 9:51:07 AM , Rating: 2

Mac users are typically so conscious of form and fashion that Apple had to make the ibooks quieter, so they fans inside are not spinning as fast and aren't as big as those found on PC notebooks. They tried to add bigger heatsinks hoping to cool it down but we know how many mac book pro users have been burnt by it.

Price drop on MPBs too.

By plinden on 5/16/2006 11:57:58 AM , Rating: 2

There also appears to have been a silent mini upgrade/price drop on the MacBook Pros. The 1.83GHz are no longer available and 2GHz and 2.16GHz have dropped (I think, I can't remember the last prices).